Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 30 August 2014, At: 20:31Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Distance EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdie20
Learner perspectives on fully onlinelanguage learningSusan Y. H. Suna
a School of Language and Culture, Auckland University ofTechnology, Auckland, New ZealandPublished online: 19 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Susan Y. H. Sun (2014) Learner perspectives on fully online language learning,Distance Education, 35:1, 18-42, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Learner perspectives on fully online language learning
Susan Y. H. Sun*
School of Language and Culture, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,New Zealand
(Received 23 October 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)
This study builds on this author’s 2011 article in which the author reflects on thepedagogical challenges and resultant changes made while teaching two fullyonline foreign language papers over a four-year period (Y. H. S. Sun (2011).Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. Knowledge Management& E-Learning: An International Journal, 3, 428–447). Drawing on current litera-ture, the present study surveyed learners (n = 46) in an attempt to investigate thedifficulties that confronted them and the ways they had adapted to fully onlinelearning. The quantitative and qualitative data obtained from a questionnaire wereintegrated and analyzed with an inductive method. Results identified six majordifficulties: (1) following the schedule and studying regularly, (2) getting hold ofclassmates and finding suitable time to work together, (3) pairing/teaming up andworking collaboratively, (4) ensuring constant engagement with the class, (5)keeping self-motivated and being a self-directed learner, and (6) socializing.
Keywords: online learning; online language learning; online participation;collaborative learning; online learning strategies
Introduction
Studies on difficulties and challenges confronting online learners
The global learning landscape of the twenty-first century is being transformed andshaped by the uptake of digital communication tools and online-networked applica-tions, along with the changing characteristics, needs, and demands of students(McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). As a result, online teachers are confronted with unprec-edented challenges amid a state of flux in which traditional hierarchies and relation-ships between teachers and learners are shifting, and new hierarchies andrelationships are constantly being forged (Bertin & Nancy-Combes, 2012). It is ashift “from teacher-centered approaches towards a personalized, small-group orien-tated, multi-dimensional model of teaching” (Sun, 2011, p. 428), and to “pedagogiesthat are more personal, social and participatory” (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010, p. 28).
Responding to the changes and challenges, online teachers and researchers havebeen examining and reflecting on their teaching practices, for example, by exploringand developing ways of incorporating computer-mediated communication (CMC)effectively and efficiently in their teaching (see, e.g., Blake, 2011; Ernest, Heiser, &Murphy, 2013; Grooms, 2003; Hasler-Waters & Napier, 2002), identifying the com-petences and skills necessary for successful online teaching (see, e.g., Baumann,
*Email: [email protected]
© 2014 Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Inc.
Distance Education, 2014Vol. 35, No. 1, 18–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.891428
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Shelley, Murphy, & White, 2008; Guichon, 2009; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Shelley,White, Baumann, & Murphy, 2006; Stickler & Shi, 2013; White, 2003), and propos-ing new pedagogic approaches and frameworks (see, e.g., Ally, 2004; Chateau &Zumbihl, 2012; Comas-Quinn, de los Arcos, & Mardomingo, 2012; Compton,2009; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Wang & Chen, 2013), just to name a few.
In an earlier study, this author (Sun, 2011) reported on the delivery of two fullyonline papers from a teacher’s perspective. (A “paper” is a course or module of studyin New Zealand universities, and a “unit of study” in Australian universities.) Thefindings of that study lend further support to previous research (see, e.g., Bertin &Nancy-Combes, 2012; Comas-Quinn et al., 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010), whichhad observed that the roles and relationships of teachers and students had undergonechanges compared to those in traditional face-to-face settings. It discussed two majorbreakdowns in online language teaching: (1) the lack of interaction among studentsthemselves and with teachers and (2) the non-functioning of the virtual classroom,that is, synchronous class activities—formal lectures or casual meetings—that hadbecome unattainable. The study also observed significant changes of learning behav-iors (use of learning strategies and approaches to learning) among learners. Fromthose findings, it seems that further in-depth studies, especially on online learners,are warranted in order to shed more light on online learning. Online learners areundoubtedly the most important participants in the online learning adventure andtheir perspectives and concerns need to be heard and investigated.
Research into online learning typically looks at individual stand-alone onlinelearning tools, or teaching methods, or particular settings of a blended learning pro-gram. The focus is often on the attitude toward, the perception and evaluation of, orthe satisfaction and performance of, online learners, and the findings of most of thesestudies are overwhelmingly positive and favorable. Wiebe and Kabata (2010) notethat “studies that investigated students’ perception and evaluation of CALL materialsmostly indicate positive outcomes” (pp. 222–223). The researchers’ concerted effortseems to suggest, unwittingly, that online learners are by and large getting on withtheir new way of learning with few problems and issues. If there are any, the prob-lems are minor ones. Unsuspecting readers could easily be led to believe that onlinelearning is mostly trouble free, as many studies show (see, e.g., positive findings inAyres, 2002; Chateau & Zumbihl, 2012; Christie, 2001; Heller, 2005; Holmes, 1998;Lai & Gu, 2011; Lee & Chan, 2007; Ma & Kelly, 2006; Nguyen, 2011; Son, 2007;Stepp-Greany, 2002; Yaneske & Oates, 2010; Yang, 2011).
The overall impression has been that online learners may have, at times, variousattitudes, perceptions, and preferences on certain settings, design, or methods, butthey are, most of the time, agreeable and satisfied, and, most importantly, almosttrouble free in their learning. However, the hard questions remain to be answered.How difficult was it to study online? What were the major difficulties? How didonline learners take up the challenges and adapt, or, maybe in some cases, avoid thechallenges? And in the case of language learning online, how do online learnersengage, interact, pair, or team up, and collaborate without the affordances of lan-guage learning in a traditional classroom environment? Learner perspectives on allof these challenges and more seem to be under investigated in the literature on lan-guage learning at a distance. Lacking specifically is direct, focused probing of diffi-culties confronting fully online learners, and their overall experiences in a courserather than just on one or two stand-alone online settings or methods within acourse.
Distance Education 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
The present study concentrates entirely on the difficulties and challenges thatconfront online language learners and also on the way they adjust and adapt in thisnew learning environment. The terms difficulty and challenge are used synony-mously in this study, although the two words have slightly different focuses.
Blended language learning vs. fully online language learning
It is worth noting that most of the studies into online learning in the literature arenot in fully online learning, “in which learners and education providers are physi-cally separated from each other, and learning is essentially supported by online edu-cation technologies” (Wang & Chen, 2013, p. 17). Rather, they are in blendedlearning—which is partially online with some face-to-face teaching. The presentstudy, on the other hand, is concerned with fully online learning, which is regardedas “a distinct field of education that has its own unique and inherent characteristics,significantly different from campus-based education or blended learning” (Wang &Chen, 2009, p. 4). What sets apart fully online learning from the other forms is thefact that there is no face-to-face interaction among teachers and students; any diffi-culties encountered by the teachers and learners cannot, therefore, be remedied byreverting to, even just momentarily, traditional classroom teaching methods. Manystudies in the distance education literature do not make the distinction betweenblended and fully online teaching and learning, and there is even less appreciationof the fact that there exists yet another set of difficulties and challenges in fullyonline learning and teaching. Very little has been published specifically on fullyonline learning and teaching, let alone on learner difficulties. Primary studies withoriginal, empirical data in the area are still rare.
Furthermore, unlike studies which examine stand-alone CMC tools as mentionedearlier, this study investigates fully online courses situated within a learning manage-ment system which “employs a range of information and communication technolo-gies to offer an online platform over the Internet, where a whole course can beplanned, facilitated and managed by both the teachers and the learner” (Wang &Chen, 2009, p. 2). In effect, this is an examination of a learning network.
It is, therefore, the intention of this study to bridge those two gaps mentionedabove: (1) learners’ positive feedback versus difficulties/challenges and (2) blendedlearning versus fully online learning. Building on the field of research in distancelearning (distance language learning in particular) that has accumulated a wealth ofknowledge in blended learning, this study looks at learners who had studied in fullyonline language courses, with a strong focus on the difficulties experienced by fullyonline learners. It is hoped that it will not only shed more light on distance learning,but also help move this body of knowledge forward to include fully online languagelearning. Ultimately, it is hoped that it will contribute to the pedagogies of distancelearning.
Literature review
In the distance education literature, two major, long-standing problems have beenwell documented: (1) lack of two-/three-way communication and (2) difficultiesassociated with self-regulation of learning (Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000). Althoughinteraction and collaboration are now attainable through technology in online learn-ing (Beldarrain, 2006, p. 140), students involved in online collaborative learning are
20 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
still commonly feeling frustrated (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012), and teachers arestill finding it no easy task trying to facilitate interaction and collaborative learning.The second problem, self-regulated learning, is an inherently problematic area innetworked learning, as it obliges learners to develop skills of self-management andadopt better approaches to, and be responsible for, their own learning (Hurd, 2006).A third important area attracting a lot of debate in recent years has been the role ofcontent (instructional materials) in online courses. Content design is even moreimportant in online second language learning. In the following subsections, anattempt is, therefore, made to review literature which investigates difficulties con-fronting online learners in the following three areas: participation and collaborativelearning, learning strategies, and approaches, and content design.
Because research specific to fully online language learning is scarce, particularlyfrom the perspective of fully online language learners, it becomes necessary to lookinto other related research literature, for example, studies on blended language learn-ing and/or fully online learning of non-language-specific subjects.
Online participation and collaborative online learning
Learner participation and interaction is of crucial importance in successful languagelearning, whether it is face-to-face, blended, or fully online (Sun, 2011). It isbelieved that greater participation in course communication results in students expe-riencing greater cognitive and explanatory learning (Paskey, 2001), and appropriateinteraction is tied to higher student satisfaction and achievement (Borokhovski,Tamim, Bernard, Abrami, & Sokolovskaya, 2012; Meyer, 2003), just to name a fewof its benefits. As for collaborative learning, the often cited advantages include thatit encourages active and constructive learning and deep processing of information,as well as evoking critical thinking, reasoning, and goal-based learning (Bernard &Rubalcava, 2000).
Online participation and collaborative learning is made possible through theapplication of CMC, which “provides a powerful environment for collaborativelearning across the globe” (Grooms, 2003, p. 2). More and more language teachersare integrating CMC, both synchronous and asynchronous, into their classroom. Theuptake of CMC for teaching and learning has become a strong new trend in highereducation programs (Nguyen, 2011). Researchers are exploring the nature and qual-ity of CMC for effective ways of using it in their teaching (see, e.g., Biasutti, 2011;Cañado, 2010; Capdeferro & Romero, 2012; Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems, &Broers, 2007; De Smet, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke 2010; Grooms, 2003;Gruba, 2004; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010; Mohd Nor, Hamat, & Embi, 2012;Tsai, 2010; Wang & Chen, 2009).
What makes online participation more difficult and challenging is that classesonly exist in cyberspace with limited physical interaction between teachers and stu-dents and this can create difficulties in working with others (Willging & Johnson,2004). The resultant feelings of disconnectedness and isolation can affect students’attitudes toward online learning (Mohd Nor et al., 2012), and thus can also put asignificant damper on students’ motivation and enthusiasm (Lee & Chan, 2007). Hurd(2005) argued that students’ perceived “lack of opportunities to practice with othersand share experiences can have an adverse effect on motivation levels” (p. 9).Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) warned that “one cannot take for granted thatparticipants will socially interact simply because the environment makes it possible”
Distance Education 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
(p. 8); and Nguyen (2011) argued that CMC learning “does not automatically ensurethe successfulness of the integration of CMC into language education” (p. 1414).
One significant problem in online learning is nonparticipation (Anderson &Simpson, 2004; Biasutti, 2011). The imbalance of participation among membersresults in imbalance of individual contribution and commitment, which in turn cre-ates a high level of frustration among learners (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012). Aninvestigation by Tseng and Yeh (2013) into students’ perceptions of online team-work learning revealed strikingly similar findings, namely some team members (1)lacked the willingness to communicate with team members, (2) lacked a sense ofindividual accountability, and (3) did not contribute to teamwork in the way as theyshould. Similarly, Moore and Iida (2010) investigated students’ frequency of useand the reasons for non-use of three online tools of a course developed in Black-board 9 and found that the majority of students used two of the tools, namelyGroupwork and Discussion, less than expected. Apart from the technical problemsand confusion with how the applications work, students were “discouraged by theinactivity of other students” (p. 976) and they “felt they had nothing to contribute”(p. 977). These findings are alarming but not totally unexpected. They serve toremind us that “facilitating group communication and interaction are areas beckon-ing attention as we continue to effectively organize the online classroom of this newmillennium” (Grooms, 2003, p. 1).
Grooms (2003) examined learner perceptions of CMC in an online doctoral pro-gram (n = 28) and found that the respondents considered communication and inter-action vitally important. All of them articulated the fundamental importance ofcommunication in the online program. They also expressed a desire to periodicallyengage in some form of real-time or synchronous activity and suggested the needfor instructors to continually encourage the participation of all. From the responsesby the participants in Groom’s investigation, students’ frustration over the lack ofcommunication and interaction is obvious. It becomes apparent that more in-depthand extensive investigations into learners’ experience in participation and collabora-tive use of various CMC tools are needed.
Online learning strategies and styles
The consensus is that people behave differently when communicating online and inface-to-face situations (Roed, 2003), and furthermore, that online communicationleads to students improving their learning approaches and acquiring new skills(Hurd, 2006). Sun’s (2011) findings of earlier investigations into the delivery of twofully online papers provide support for such assertions. Sun observed that fullyonline learners:
shied away from class meetings at the virtual classroom … subtly altered the ways theyinteract with teachers and fellow students … adjusted their learning styles by formingsmaller groups or working in pairs. They preferred small group collaboration in theonline learning environment … stopped trying to know and work with other membersof the class rather than their own small group. (pp. 441–442)
It is a change to go from classroom-based large-group learning to small-grouplearning. Biasutti (2011) reported similar working patterns in her investigation ofstudent experience of collaborative e-learning, in which she concluded, “for nearly
22 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
all students, small group activities improved communication and the development ofsocial skills, demonstrating that also in virtual environments group size in learningis important” (pp. 1873–1874).
Another behavioral change is from one-size-fits-all to individualized or personal-ized learning, as Sun (2011) observed:
There was a radical shift in the way people learn languages – independently throughchoosing their own tools, and, as a consequence, creating their own “Personal LearningEnvironments”.
… In this environment, a learner is able to choose his/her own learning materials …his own tools to best suit his learning methods and style … His learning environmentcontinues to evolve as learning progresses. He is the center and everything else, e.g.,learning materials and tools, teachers and peers, etc., circle around him. (pp. 441–442)
Learning is also shifting toward more self-directed, self-regulated learning, sup-ported by the socially based tools and technologies of the Web 2.0 movement(McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Online learners are increasingly required to “prepare forhis/her own learning, take the necessary steps to learn, manage and evaluate thelearning and provide self feedback and judgement, while simultaneously maintaininga high level of motivation” (p. 29). Distance learners need to “regulate and overseethe rate and direction of their learning to a far greater degree than classroom learn-ers” (White, 1994, pp. 12–13).
To encourage and facilitate self-directed, self-regulated learning, online courseshave been increasingly equipped with self-access centers incorporating technologyto support the development of learner autonomy. Studies have been carried out toexamine the effects of these tools and mechanisms on student learning (see, e.g.,Hurd, 2006; Reinders, 2006; Toogood & Pemberton, 2002). Nevertheless, almost allthe findings of those studies are positive; and in the case of Reinders (2006, 2007),it was reported that students were extremely satisfied with the program. However,when the records of student work stored in the database were closely examined, they“gave a somewhat less positive picture … many students did not complete their ini-tial needs analysis and very few updated their learning plans … the suggestionsmade by the computer were seldom followed by the students” (Darasawang &Reinders, 2010, unpaginated). Reflecting on the problem of underuse of these pro-grams and designs, Darasawang and Reinders (2010) pointed out that students infact do not have a great deal of experience in maintaining a record of their ownlearning or keeping track of and reflecting on their learning, which is required andencouraged by the self-directed and self-regulated learning approach. It seems a con-siderable challenge for online learners to learn to become self-directed, self-regulatedlearners. Students’ weakest learning strategies in online collaboration are planning,reflecting, or monitoring, as reported by Wang (2010).
Again, there is a clear lack in the literature of knowledge about learners’ experi-ence and perception of small-group, personalized, self-directed, self-regulated learn-ing. Most importantly, what are the difficulties they must overcome in order to adaptto the new learning environment? Very few studies specifically discuss behavioralchanges or examine learners’ strategic steps taken to resolve problems encounteredin online learning. There are even fewer, if any, studies which detail students’ self-reported changes of learning behavior. Nevertheless, we are well aware that “how
Distance Education 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
successful we are as language learners generally depends on our ability to use effec-tive learning strategies” (Roed, 2003, p. 157).
Online content (instructional materials)
The rethink of pedagogy in the global learning landscape of the twenty-first century,that is, the shift from a traditional teacher-centered approach to student-centered, self-regulated, personalized learning through CMC, has called for the re-evaluation of therole of content (instructional materials) in online courses (see McLoughlin & Lee,2010). Based on the principles of social constructivism, online content is no longerprescribed, pre-packaged materials; instead, it focuses on the process of learning (asopposed to the product) through designing experiences which build capability,develop skills, and facilitate personal learning, such as real-life problem-solving andcritical thinking skills, and self-directed, self-regulated, personalized learning(Hirshon 2005; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Central to online content design is collab-orative learning tasks (Gruba, 2004). It is even more so in second language learning,as Chapelle (2001) emphasized that “anyone concerned with second language teach-ing and learning in the twenty-first century needs to grasp the nature of the uniquetechnology-mediated tasks learners can engage in for language acquisition” (p. 2).These tasks should not only be teamwork- or project-oriented, but also should pro-vide real-world context (e.g., critical working relationships) and facilitate experientiallearning (Correia, 2008). Similarly, in second language learning, there is a growingemphasis on integrating authentic activities, and “loosely directed” learner self-directed tasks, so as to encourage learner creativity and reflection (see Gruba, 2004).
Online interaction has in recent years “been extended in educational contexts toinclude student interactions with curricular content” (Borokhovski et al., 2012,p. 313). Introduced by Moore (1989), student–content interaction refers to studentsinteracting with the subject matter they are studying to construct meaning, relate itto personal knowledge, and apply it to problem-solving. An online virtual classroomshould be able to support not only peer–peer and student–instructor interaction, butalso student–content interaction—a three-mode interaction model (Borokhovskiet al., 2012; Subramaniam & Kandasamy, 2011; Wang & Chen, 2013). “It is funda-mental that interaction between the student and the course content … contributes tolearning” (Meyer, 2003, p. 57).
It will be interesting to see how the students perceive the content of onlinecourses, which have been shaped increasingly by social constructivist theories.
Research question
This exploratory study, informed by the author’s experience of developing andteaching fully online language courses at a New Zealand university and also by thecurrent research literature in CMC and computer-assisted language learning,attempts to open up a field of enquiry into the following questions:
(1) What are the difficulties for fully online language learners in CMC andcollaboration?
(2) What emerging new learning behaviors are brought about by online pedago-gies and CMC in the context of language learning?
(3) How do students perceive the content of fully online language courses?
24 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
The third question above is a minor aim compared to the first two. Contentdesign is an area of concern more for teaching than for learning. A thorough investi-gation on learner–content interaction would certainly be interesting, but is beyondthe scope of this learner-focused research. However, in light of the new understand-ing of and demand for content design brought about by online pedagogies, learners’perceptions on that, for example, collaborative tasks, authentic materials, will showhow well they have grasped and adapted to the new learning environment, or helpuncover learner difficulties in the area.
Methodology
The context
The two fully online Chinese language papers under investigation were set up in amultimodal learning environment with various online voice/video tools (e.g., WimbaVoice Board, Voice Direct Conferencing, Voice Presentation, Elluminate Live) inte-grated in the Blackboard suite in a New Zealand university.
They were designed with an extremely strong focus on interaction (oral interac-tion in particular) between and among class members and teachers. It had been astrong belief on the teachers’ part that communicative language can only be learnedin an active, interactive learning community. There had always been multiple roomsspecifically created for not only text, but also audio/video socialization, paired orgroup practice and presentation, and weekly drop-ins. The assessments are largelyinteractive, with two individual online assignments, two paired/group oral presenta-tions (focusing on encouraging learner–learner synchronous and asynchronousinteraction and collaboration), and a final oral exam (focusing on encouraging lear-ner–teacher synchronous and asynchronous interaction). They are designed in such away that they provide ample opportunities for learners to interact and collaboratethroughout the course.
The participants
All the class members of the two online papers in that four-year period (2008–2011)were considered prospective participants in this project, but only 140 of them werecontactable (assuming their addresses were still current and they all received theinvitation, which is very unlikely); others left without further contact details. Afterseveral mass e-mails, 46 of them replied and participated in the study, giving aresponse rate of approximately 33%. It’s worth noting that not all the 140 partici-pants had passed the online papers. There were no particular recruitment criteria toeither include or exclude any particular type of students. It was the researcher’sintention to include as wide-ranging views as possible on fully online learning, fromthose who successfully passed the papers and those who failed.
Data collection
The research instrument in this study is a survey employing both qualitative andquantitative methods for data collection. The survey is in the form of a questionnairedeveloped by the researcher (see Appendix) drawing on the literature and adapted forstudents of fully online learning. It consists of two sections with 32 questions in total.
Distance Education 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Part 1 used a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)for questions asking students to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreedwith the 19 statements on four areas of fully online language learning: online partici-pation (items 1–4), collaborative e-learning/group work (items 5–8), content ofonline courses (items 9–14), and learning strategies and styles (items 15–19). Theresults were analyzed using SPSS, which provided means and deviation for eachquestion. Reliability analyses were also conducted to measure the internal consis-tency of each of the four areas calculating Cronbach’s alpha.
Part 2 of the survey consisted of 13 open-ended questions (items 20–32) askingparticipants to share their personal experience in fully online language learning. Thequestions focused on two areas: online participation/collaboration and self-regulationof learning, which would help to answer the first two research questions in moredepth. A broad spectrum of descriptive data concerning these two research areaswas collected. After integrating with data from part 1, where appropriate, an induc-tive method was employed to analyze the integrated data and capture the emergingcategories. The process included five phases: (1) immersion (recognizing all the dis-cernible different answers), (2) categorization (categories emerging), (3) phenomeno-logical reduction (establishing themes), (4) triangulation (sustaining researcher’sinterpretations), and (5) interpretation (explaining with reference to previousresearch) (see Biasutti, 2011, for more detailed explanation of this method).
Results
The results from the questionnaire are organized into three sections corresponding tothe three research questions, integrating data from the 19 Likert-scale questions andthe 13 open-ended questions.
Difficulties in fully online participation and collaborative learning
The first four questions in part 1 of the questionnaire listed some commonlyobserved problems in online participation and interaction, such as (1) lack of oppor-tunities for peer interaction and difficulty in participating and engaging with others;(2) interactions being limited to small groups; and (3) learning in small groups, andknowing very few classmates. Students’ responses were overwhelmingly favorablewith all the means above the average means of three on a five-point Likert scale(see Table 1). In particular, the means for question two is the highest in the group at3.87, which seems to confirm rather convincingly that students are indeed interactingand learning in small groups at online settings.
The next set of questions is four positively worded statements asking students’opinions regarding group work, project-type work, learner cooperation andcollaboration, and group discussion. Students’ responses were overwhelmingly
Table 1. Learner experience of fully online particpation.
Question/Statement N Mean (3) SD
1 46 3.22 1.0092 46 3.87 .5823 46 3.83 .708814 46 3.13 .74859
26 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
positive (see Table 2). While all the means are rather high (3.39 and above), theresponse for question seven stands out in particular with its means being four. The ori-ginal data (which gives the details of how many respondents ticked each Likert-scalepoint) shows that no one disagreed, let alone strongly disagreed, with the statementthat learner cooperation and collaboration should be encouraged in online learning.
Three open-ended questions (items 21–23) in part 2 of the questionnaire alsoaddressed the problem of participation and collaborative learning. They had beendesigned specifically to ask students to describe, reflect, and comment on their per-sonal experience. After careful and repeated reading, and analysis of the answersfrom the 34 respondents (of the 46 respondents, 12 skipped part 2 of the question-naire for unknown reasons), two discernible categories of concern emerged:
� difficulties with socializing and interacting; and� collaboration only with one or a few classmates (small group).
Nine respondents said there had only been limited socialization and interaction,and four said that they never socialized. One student explained that it had been “dif-ficult to get hold of people.” Another student noted, “once you had a partner therewas not much socializing as you would only go online during organized time frameswith them. People seemed reluctant to chat randomly with one another because youdid not really know who they were.”
Four participants reported that they had only worked/collaborated with one class-mate throughout the course, and another four students said they had only workedwith their own friends in the class (presumably friends they had known before theonline classes). One student described the interaction being “more clinical thansocial, as partners were busy, interactions were to the point to ensure efficiency.”
Emerging new learning behaviors (fully online learning strategies and styles)
Questions 15–19 in part 1 of the questionnaire inquire about the ways which fullyonline learners learn as opposed to face-to-face classroom learning (see Table 3).Some rather technical terms which increasingly characterize online learning, forexample, self-directed, self-regulated, individualized or personalized learning,flexibility, self-direction, choice, personal learning environments, were put to theparticipants.
Self-directed and self-regulated learning (in question 15) may have been newjargon for some students (two respondents opted to skip the question), but theirresponses (means: 3.93) seem to indicate that they practiced self-regulation oflearning and were aware of its importance in fully online learning.
Questions 16–17 are concerned with individual learners having choices inselecting various technologies and being able to configure/form their own personal
Table 2. Learner experience in collaborative online learning.
Question/Statement N Mean (3) SD
5 46 3.74 .772726 46 3.93 .800067 46 4 .596288 46 3.39 .80217
Distance Education 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
learning environments. Data collected show strong agreement (means: 3.76 and3.70) among students. It confirms that they did, to some degree, pick and choose,and learn in their own preferred ways.
Question 18 represents an attempt to find out whether online learning bettermeets learners’ personal learning preferences, needs, social life, and technologychoices than traditional classroom learning. Results suggest that this is indeed thecase for most of the respondents (means: 3.80).
Many respondents agreed with question 19 that they had control over their learn-ing (means: 3.70).
As for the open-ended questions (items 20, 26–31) regarding the changed,emerging learning behaviors, responses from the 34 participants brought new dis-coveries and fruitful insights.
When asked how to keep engaged with the course (question 20), the strategiesfor 10 respondents had been “keep checking” and “keep learning” regularly. Fourrespondents emphasized the importance of assessment deadline in helping theirengagement in the course.
When asked what changes and effort they had made to adapt (question 26), theresponses reveal a variety of learning strategies:
� put in more time (mentioned by 3 respondents);� put an effort to study consistently (3);� improved time management skills (2);� tried harder to interact with other students (2);� be self-motivated (2);� organized information according to my own pattern (1);� did more self-study (1);� got into a different routine (1); and� prepared ahead of time (1).
When asked what were successful and the not-so-successful learning strategies(question 27), self-motivation seemed to be the biggest one, with four participantsattributing their success directly to being highly motivated, and two others mention-ing that self-directed learning had been the key. One participant regretted not beingable to maintain motivation.
Responding to question 28, many participants (20) regretted that they had notspent more time on study and put more effort into interacting and practicing the lan-guage with classmates. This does not necessarily mean that the participants had beenslack in their studies; rather, it may indicate that fully online learning places greaterdemand for self-regulation of learning on learners.
Table 3. Learner experience of learning strategies and style.
Question/Statement N Mean (3) SD
15 44 3.93 .8462716 46 3.76 .8990117 46 3.70 .6623018 46 3.80 .9096919 46 3.70 .86589
28 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
When students were asked whether they had noticed any new ways or models oflearning by other class members (question 29), almost all the respondents (31 out of34) replied with a simple “no.” This is rather interesting, since many of them hadindicated earlier on in the questionnaire that they had indeed altered many of theways in which they learn. The majority “no” responses seem to indicate that thenew learning environment had in some way demanded change or the adoption ofnew learning strategies, but that the learners had only just been slowly coming togrips with it, and they had yet to develop full awareness.
In questions 30 and 31, participants were asked again to reflect on their learningstrategies and try to establish the best practices/ways in online learning and howteachers can better facilitate their learning. Although most of the answers fell intothe usual categories, for example, keep working, practice more, interact with otherclass members more, there were reflections which touched on self-regulated, collab-orative learning. One student said the best method is “a combination of weekly dis-cussions, group work, class get-togethers;” another suggested “encouraging a groupatmosphere where there is place for informality and giving a relaxed environment,[and] where it is easy to connect with other students to learn together and help moti-vate one another.”
Online content (instructional materials)
Another set of statements (questions 9–14) in part 1 of the questionnaire is con-cerned with instructional materials in online learning. Respondents were asked tolook back to their experience of online learning and see how much they would agreewith those statements. The intention was to gage students’ opinions on (1) task-based instruction, (2) authentic teaching material, (3) learner initiatives in designingonline instructional materials, (4) learner co-construction of course material andresources, (5) learner creativity, and (6) the role of the instructional materials indeveloping students’ real-life problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
Expectations were not high for lots of feedback, as the learners may not havebeen familiar with the area of instructional materials (content design in general).However, the responses show a high level of appreciation of good content designamong the learners. All the means are 3.61 and above, with that for question 11being the highest in all the responses in the questionnaire at 4.09 (see Table 4). Itseems that students do give a lot of thought to content design of online courses, andthrough their interaction with the content they know what kinds of instructionalmaterials work better for them.
There were no open-ended questions specifically seeking learners’ opinions inonline content design. Full investigation into content design and learner–content
Table 4. Learner perceptions of online content design.
Question/Statement N Mean (3) SD
9 46 3.61 .7447110 46 3.83 .7973411 45 4.09 .7013712 44 3.70 .7947413 46 3.59 .8583214 45 3.87 .69413
Distance Education 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
interaction requires data from the teachers as well. It is obviously beyond the scopeof this research.
Difficulties and challenges in online learning
Finally, there were two additional open-ended questions in the questionnaire whichaddress all three research questions. They had been designed specifically to focuslearners’ attention to the difficulties/challenges encountered over the entire onlinecourse.
In question 24, students were asked to share with us the “most challengingthing” in fully online learning. Their responses highlighted an array of challengeswhich recurred in their answers throughout the questionnaire:
� lack of interaction and practice with peers (mentioned by 4 respondents);� practicing pronunciation (4);� keeping up with things and studying consistently (3);� limited socialization (3);� no immediate feedback (3);� communicating on a computer (2);� time management (2);� lack of group discussion (2);� writing Chinese characters (2);� listening to Chinese (2);� keeping motivated (2);� having less communication with the teacher (1);� finding partners to work with (1);� isolation (felt lonely) (1);� self-study (1);� oral presentations (1);� live chat with teachers (1) and;� reduction in social cues (having a definitive sense of what is going on andassessing myself with respect to my peers) (1).
In question 25, 11 potentially difficult areas were listed and students were asked totick as many items as were applicable to them. The results (see Table 5) show that thebiggest difficulty in fully online learning was to “follow the schedule and study regu-larly” (50%), followed by “finding partners to work and practice with” (47.1%). Thethird biggest problem was “finding a common available time to work with a partner”(44.1%). Also at 44.1% was “technical difficulties,” which was expected but will notbe further investigated in this project as numerous previous studies have dealt with that.
In summary, the participants throughout the survey reiterated several themes. Sixdefining difficulties in fully online learning emerged from the integrated data:
(1) following the schedule and studying regularly;(2) getting hold of classmates and finding suitable time to work together;(3) forming a pair or teaming up and working collaboratively;(4) ensuring constant engagement with the class;(5) keeping self-motivated and being a self-directed, self-regulated learner and;(6) socializing.
30 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Discussion
Fully online foreign language learning is still in its infancy. Empirical data fromlearners, such as has been gathered in this research and the recurrent themes thathave subsequently emerged, is undoubtedly of great value in helping to better under-stand the learning process in this new cyberspace environment and in guiding effec-tive instructional design.
While the six major difficulties identified by the learners are in fact all interre-lated, they fall into two areas (themes): interaction and collaboration, and learningstrategies, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The discussion below will firstly focus on the area of interaction and collabora-tion (the first three difficulties in Figure 1) with an attempt to answer the firstresearch question of this study, followed by the discussion of learning strategies (thelast three difficulties in Figure 1) with an attempt to address the second researchquestion. Finally there will be a brief discussion with reference to the third researchquestion.
Research question 1: Difficulties in online participation and collaborativelearning
The first three difficulties in Figure 1 point directly to the root of the inherent prob-lem in fully online learning: lacking a physical place where students can meet, study,and socialize routinely at a fixed given time.
Table 5. Difficulties identified by percentage of learners.
Questions 25
What other difficulties did you encounter during the course? (tick as many items below aswere applicable to you)
Original itemnumbers inquestionnaire Items of difficulty
Response(%) Responses
9 Following the schedule and study regularly 50.00 172 Finding ‘partners’ to work and practice with 47.10 163 Finding a common available time to work with a
partner44.10 15
1 Technical difficulties 44.10 155 Keeping in touch with the class 32.40 116 Keeping in touch with the teacher, e.g., turning up
at the weekly Virtual Classroom sessions29.40 10
8 Keeping motivated 26.50 911 Being self-regulated as a successful learner should 26.50 97 Keeping interested in the course 20.60 74 Sticking to the pair-work or group-work schedule 17.60 610 Keeping the assessment deadlines 2.90 112 Others. Please state: 2.90 1
Note. N = 46; answered question = 34; skipped question = 12.
Distance Education 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
The majority of participants not only agreed in their Likert-question answers thatthese had been the difficulties, but also repeatedly pointed them out in their open-ended question answers. It was in fact rather alarming that so many participants said(in question 23) that they did not socialize (4) or did very little socializing (9). Thisis consistent with Muilenburg and Berge’s (2005) finding when they surveyed 1056online learners and reported that “a lack of social interaction was the severe barrieras perceived by students overall” (p. 45). Low participation in online activities hasbeen frequently reported in the research literature (Comas-Quinn et al., 2012).
Collaborative interaction is the “heart and soul of an online course” (Draves,2002, cited in Wang & Chen, 2013). There is no surprise that students rated groupwork highly, be it project-type work or group discussion. Students also favorablyrated cooperative and collaborative learning. This is due perhaps to the lack of that—in other words, due to the fact that there had not been enough opportunities forthem to do so, and they could not emphasize enough its importance. Many studentsreported that they had ended up, disappointingly, pairing only with one other person(a friend, in several cases) or teaming up in a small group for collaborative work(this small-group strategy will be revisited in the next subsection), with the interac-tion overall being minimal, just enough to ensure efficiency.
Another widely reported problem of online collaboration in the literature isunequal participation and contribution (see, e.g., Comas-Quinn et al., 2012; Wang &Chen, 2013), which interestingly was not mentioned by the participants in this study.The rule of thirds accepted by many involved in online learning is that in an onlinelearning community, there is usually a third of students contributing regularly,another third only sporadically, and a third not at all (see Comas-Quinn et al., 2012).This author, who had also been the instructor in the online courses under investiga-tion, has certainly seen a lot of unequal contribution in collaboration, which led tostudent frustrations. When respondents in this study reported difficulties in
Major difficulties in fully online foreign language learning
Interaction & collaboration
(1)
Get hold of classmates & find
suitable time to work together
(2)
Pair/team up and work collaboratively
(3)
Socialize
Learning strategies
(4)
Follow schedule & study regularly
(5)
Ensure engagement with the class
Keep self-motivated & be a self-directed, self-regulated learner
Figure 1. Learners’ perceived major difficulties in fully online language learning.
32 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
collaboration as one of the biggest problems with little elaboration, unequal contri-bution should perhaps be considered as part of it.
Nevertheless, the positive assertion by participants of this study on the values andbenefits of interaction and collaboration offers support to the literature in whichnumerous researchers have highlighted the importance of scaffolding interaction andcollaboration to support online learners (e.g., Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000; Dewiyantiet al., 2007; Gruba, 2004; Hasler-Waters & Napier, 2002; Su & Beaumont, 2010;Subramaniam & Kandasamy, 2011; Wang, 2010; Wilson, 2004).
Research question 2: Emerging new learning behaviors (online learningstrategies and styles)
Three out of six most difficult things identified by the students relate directly toself-directed and self-regulated learning (see Figure 1). The biggest problem was“following the schedule and studying regularly” followed by “ensuring constantengagement with the class.” It seems, from their answers, that they were aware ofthe need to be self-motivated and self-disciplined in order to succeed in fully onlinelearning. However, for many of them, self-regulated learning skills such as settinggoals, orienting one’s action accordingly, planning, monitoring, asking for helpwhen needed, trying out different strategies, and reflecting (see Guichon, 2009;Hurd, 2006; Wang, 2010) had perhaps not been previously acquired. In fact, theselearning strategies could have been new to many online students. “It is a mistake toassume that learners naturally possess the prerequisites for skillful collaboration, orfor that matter, any form of online experience,” argued Bernard and de Rubalcava(2000, p. 266). In the report on their successful online assessment design, Wang andChen (2013) also asserted strongly the need to train learners for not only interactingand collaborating, but also reflecting effectively. In her study on student online col-laboration and offline interaction Wang (2010) concluded that although the imple-mentation of information and communications technology tools in blended learningdoes promote social interaction and engagement, it “does not automatically facilitatestudents in their adoption of active learning strategies” (p. 842).
The complete disappearance of the classroom has undoubtedly made meetingand socializing among learners extremely difficult, let alone learning collaboratively.Under the circumstances, students had no choice but to make changes and adapt,evidently (from the data gathered) through switching to small-group learning, andindividualized, personalized learning. Interestingly, although students mentioned thevarious changed learning behaviors in different places in the survey, when askedwhether they had made the effort to change and adapt to the new learning environ-ment, they did not seem to be aware that they had, nor that they had also becomeheavily reliant on these new ways of learning. The terms small-group learning andcollaborative learning are often used interchangeably (Bernard & Rubalcava, 2000)in the literature. Small-group strategy is in fact one of the main strategies peopleadopt in online collaborative learning. This new way of learning has been observedand reported in the author’s previous study (Sun, 2011). Indeed the present studyattempted and is now able to confirm the use of this strategy, lending support to sim-ilar findings in the literature (Anderson & Simpson, 2004; Biasutti, 2011).
There has also been confirmation from the students that they individually chosevarious tools to configure and form their own learning environments. Data collectedshow that some students had been learning with their own style, for example,
Distance Education 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
different ways of using the audio and video resources to practice speaking, variousgroup-work patterns (meeting online, face-to-face, telephoning). One participantnoted, “I organized information according to my own pattern” and another reportedmaking his own flashcards to put on his iPhone. One can easily appreciate the diffi-culties confronting online learners when their accustomed old learning approachesand strategies no longer work for them. They initiate changes themselves out offrustration, while grappling with new applications and tools and trying to meet theirpreferences, needs, social habits, and technology choices.
Research question 3: Perceptions of online content (instructional materials)
Finally, this study also attempted to find out how fully online language learners per-ceive online learning materials through their interaction with the content. It is a littlesurprising, admittedly, but pleasing that the respondents showed a high level ofawareness and appreciation of various pedagogical features in online content, forexample, task-based, authentic, learner-generated materials; development of real-lifeproblem-solving and critical thinking skills. Although there were no open-endedquestions asked regarding content design in the questionnaire, since content under-pinned by social constructivism is closely tied to collaborative, self-regulated learn-ing, it was not surprising to find many respondents indirectly touching on contentdesign while answering questions in the survey. One student said appreciatively,“Tasks were assigned which needed to be completed. This requirement ensured con-stant engagement.”
Conclusion
This study identified six major difficulties pertaining to fully online language learn-ing, online communication and collaboration, and self-regulated learning: (1) follow-ing the schedule and studying regularly, (2) ensuring constant engagement with theclass, (3) getting hold of classmates and finding suitable time to work together, (4)pairing/teaming up and working collaboratively, (5) keeping self-motivated andbeing a self-directed learner, and (6) socializing. Data from this study confirms thatfully online learning is personalized, self-directed, and self-regulated, with paired orsmall-group activities.
It also established that online learners have a high level of awareness and appre-ciation of a range of online pedagogical features underpinned by a social construc-tivist theoretical framework. Although most of the findings are not new and ingeneral agreement with the distance learning literature, the strengths of this studyare threefold:
(1) It provided learners’ perspectives with totally learner-reported data andincluding a considerable amount of descriptive data.
(2) It focused entirely on learning difficulties in a fully online environment.(3) It asked students to reflect on and evaluate a whole fully online course rather
than a single or a few stand-alone online tools, settings, or methods.
It, thus, contributes to the understanding of fully online language learning as awhole, and sheds light in particular on learner difficulties.
34 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Finally, it has to be pointed out that there are two limitations to this study.Firstly, although the two papers were set up similarly over the years (2008–2011),there have been changes due to the ever-advancing online technologies. As a result,students in different classes/years might have experienced slightly different instruc-tional designs. The findings are, therefore, general in nature and should be treatedwith caution when interpreting the results. Secondly, this is a convenient sample.The researcher surveyed only the students she had access to. The results cannot begeneralized to represent a wider fully online learner population.
Notes on contributorSusan is a senior lecturer at the School of Language and Culture, Auckland University ofTechnology, New Zealand, with more than 10 years’ experience in designing and teachingblended and fully online language courses (Chinese language focus). This has been her mainresearch area in recent years.
ReferencesAlly, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson &
F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 3–31). Athabasca: Athaba-sca University. Retrieved from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/pdf/TPOL_book.pdf
Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2004). Group and class contexts for learning and supportonline: Learning and affective support online in small group and class contexts. TheInternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 15, 241–249. doi:10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189
Baumann, U., Shelley, M., Murphy, L., & White, C. (2008). New challenges: The role of thetutor in the teaching of languages at a distance. Distances et Savoirs, 6, 364–392.doi:10.3166/ds.6.365-392
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to fosterstudent interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27, 139–153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498
Bernard, R. M., & Rubalcava, B. R. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: Issues forfuture practice and research. Distance Education, 21, 260–277. doi:10.1080/0158791000210205
Bertin, J.-C., & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2012). Tutoring at a distance. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 25, 105–109. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.649087
Biasutti, M. (2011). The student experience of a collaborative e-Learning university module.Computers & Education, 57, 1865–1875. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.0 06
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics, 31, 19–35. doi:10.1017/S026719051100002X
Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Arecontextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in dis-tance education? Distance Education, 33, 311–329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162
Cañado, M. L. P. (2010). Using virtual learning environments and computer-mediatedcommunication to enhance the lexical competence of pre-service English teachers: Aquantitative and qualitative study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 129–150.doi:10.1080/09588221003666222
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learn-ing experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,13, 26–44. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer application in second language acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Distance Education 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Chateau, A., & Zumbihl, H. (2012). Learners’ perceptions of the pedagogical relations in aflexible language learning system. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 165–179.doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.636053
Christie, K. N. (2001). Web-based multimedia in business Italian: A longitudinal evaluationof learner experiences and attitudes. Italica, 78, 499–525. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=italica
Comas-Quinn, A., de los Arcos, B., & Mardomingo, R. (2012). Virtual learning environ-ments (VLEs) for distance language learning: Shifting tutor roles in a contested space forinteraction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25, 129–143. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.636055
Compton, L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills,roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 73–99.doi:10.1080/09588220802613831
Correia, A.-P. (2008). Moving from theory to real-world experiences in an e-learning commu-nity. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/j/ISSN-1552-3233
Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2010). Encouraging autonomy with an online language sup-port system. CALL-EJ Online, 11(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/index.html
De Smet, M., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2010). Cross-age tutors in asyn-chronous discussion groups: Exploring the impact of three types of tutor training on pat-terns in tutor support and on tutor characteristics. Computers & Education, 54, 1167–1181. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.002
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. J. (2007). Students’ experienceswith collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learningenvironments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 496–514. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.021
Ernest, P., Heiser, S., & Murphy, L. (2013). Developing teacher skills to support collaborativeonline language learning. The Language Learning Journal, 41, 37–54. doi:10.1080/09571736.2011.625095
Grooms, L. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: A vehicle for learning. InternationalReview of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/index
Gruba, P. (2004). Designing tasks for online collaborative language learning. Prospect, 19,72–81. Retrieved from http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/resources/prospect
Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competencethrough reflective analysis. Recall, 21, 166–185. doi:10.1017/S0958344009000214
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teachlanguages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 311–326. doi:10.1080/09588220500335455
Hasler-Waters, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student team collaborationin the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 345–352.Retrieved from http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=25
Heller, I. (2005). Learner experiences and CALL-tool usability – Evaluating the chemnitzinternet grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 119–142. doi:10.1080/09588220500132316
Hirshon, A. (2005). A diamond in the rough: Divining the future of e-content. EDUCASSEReview, 40, 34–44. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero
Holmes, B. (1998). Initial perceptions of CALL by Japanese university students. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 11, 397–409. doi:10.1076/call.11.4.397.5674
Hurd, S. (2005). Autonomy and the distance language learner. In B. Holmberg, M. A. Shel-ley, & C. J. White (Eds.), Languages and distance education: Evolution and change(pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hurd, S. (2006). Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance languagelearner: Learner perceptions of personality, motivation, roles, and approaches. DistanceEducation, 27, 303–329. doi:10.1080/01587910600940406
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interac-tion in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the
36 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632/33
Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 317–335. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.568417
Lee, M. J. W., & Chan, A. (2007). Reducing the effects of isolation and promotinginclusivity for distance learners through podcasting. Turkish Online Journal of DistanceEducation, 8, 85–105. Retrieved from http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/index.htm
Liaw, M. L., & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an anal-ysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 21–40.doi:10.1080/09588220903467301
Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 15–45. doi:10.1080/09588220600803998
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self-regulated learning in the Web2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Austral-asian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 28–43. Retrieved from http://www.asci-lite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. JALN, 7, 55–65. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Mohd Nor, N. F., Hamat, A., & Embi, M. A. (2012). Patterns discourse in online interaction:Seeking evidence of the collaborative learning process. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 25, 237–256. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.655748
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education,3, 1–7. doi.10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, K., & Iida, S. (2010). Students’ perception of supplementary, online activities for Jap-anese language learning: Groupwork, quiz and discussion tools. Australasian Journal ofEducational Technology, 26, 966–979. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/sub-mission/index.php/AJET/index
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factoranalytic study. Distance Education, 26, 29–48. doi:10.1080/01587910500081269
Nguyen, L. V. (2011). Learners’ reflections on and perceptions of computer-mediated com-munication in a language classroom: A Vietnamese perspective. Australasian Journal ofEducational Technology, 27, 1413–1436. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Paskey, J. A. (2001, April 26). Survey compares 2 Canadian MBA programs, one online andone traditional. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Survey-Compares-2-Canadian/108330/
Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environ-ment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: Issues andinterventions (pp. 219–238). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learningwith a student monitoring system. System, 35, 93–111. Retrieved from http://www.jour-nals.elsevier.com/system/
Roed, J. (2003). Language learner behaviour in a virtual environment. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 16, 155–172. doi:10.1076/call.16.2.155.15880
Shelley, M., White, C., Baumann, U., & Murphy, L. (2006). ‘It’s a unique role!’ Perspectiveson tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching. The International Reviewof Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7, 1–15. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/ir-rodl/index
Son, J.-B. (2007). Learner experiences in web-based language learning. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 20, 21–36. doi:10.1080/09588220601118487
Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological envi-ronment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning and Technology, 6,165–180. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
Stickler, U., & Shi, L. (2013). Supporting Chinese speaking skills online. System, 41, 50–69.Retrieved from http://www.journals.elsevier.com/system/
Distance Education 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning.Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47, 417–431. doi:10.1080/14703297.2010.518428
Subramaniam, N. K., & Kandasamy, M. (2011). The virtual classroom: A catalyst for institu-tional transformation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 1388–1412.Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Sun, Y. H. S. (2011). Online language teaching: The pedagogical challenges. KnowledgeManagement & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3, 428–447. Retrieved from http://www.kmel-journal.org/ojs/index.php/online-publication/index
Toogood, S., & Pemberton, R. (2002). Integrating self-directed learning into curriculum: Acase study. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Challenges to research and practice(pp. 86–110). Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources.
Tsai, C.-W. (2010). Do students need teacher’s initiation in online collaborative learning?Computers & Education, 54, 1137–1144. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.021
Tseng, H. W., & Yeh, H.-T. (2013). Team members’ perceptions of online teamwork learningexperiences and building teamwork trust: A qualitative study. Computers & Education,63, 1–9. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315
Wang, M. J. (2010). Online collaboration and offline interaction between students using asyn-chronous tolls in blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26,830–846. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning managementsystems: arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted LanguageLearning, 22, 1–18. doi:10.1080/09588220802613773
Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Engendering interaction, collaboration, and reflection in thedesign of online learning assessment in language learning: A reflection from the coursedesigners. In B. Zou, M. Xing, C. Xiang, Y. Wang, & M. Sun (Eds.), Computer-assistedforeign language teaching and learning: Technological advances (pp. 16–38). Hershey,PA: IGI Global.
White, C. (1994). Language learning strategy research in distance education: The yokedsubject technique. In T. Evans & D. Murphy (Eds.), Research in distance education 3(pp. 10–20). Geelong: Deakin University.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Wiebe, G., & Kabata, K. (2010). Students’ and instructors’ attitudes toward the use of CALLin foreign language teaching and learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23,221–234. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.486577
Willging, P. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2004). Factors that influence students decision to drop outof online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8, 105–118. Retrievedfrom http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/jaln_main
Wilson, G. (2004). Online interaction impacts on learning: Teaching the teachers to teachonline. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20, 33–48. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/index
Yaneske, E., & Oates, B. (2010). Using voice boards: Pedagogical design, technologicalimplementation, evaluation and reflections. ALT-J, 18, 233–250. doi:10.1080/09687769.2010.529106
Yang, Y. F. (2011). Engaging students in an online situated language learning environment.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 181–198. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.538700
38 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
Appendix.The survey questionnaire
Please note: Your completion of this survey indicates your consent to participate in thisresearch.
Part I: General characteristics of online language learning(Please circle one number from the 5-point scale)
A. Participation (Questions 1–4)
(1) There was not enough opportunity for peer interaction. I found it moredifficult to participate and engage in an online class than a traditionalclassroom.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(2) Instead of interacting with many people in a class (multidimensionalinteractions), my interactions with classmates were often limited to a smallgroup of classmates.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––-3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(3) I learnt in a small group rather than in a big class, e.g., I only practicedwith a handful of classmates as I knew fewer classmates than I would havedone in the traditional classroom setting.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––-2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(4) Much work was needed by the teacher to foster the building of an onlinelearning community.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
B. Group work (Questions 5–8)
(5) I liked the group work we had to do.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(6) Group work and project-type work are important parts in online learning.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––-3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
Distance Education 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
(7) Learner cooperation and collaboration should be encouraged in onlinelearning.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(8) There needed to be more group discussions on study-related mattersamongst class members and with the teachers.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––-3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
C. Instructional material (Questions 9–14)
The next six statements below (Question 9–14), rather than specifically refer to theonline Chinese paper(s) you did at AUT, they represent the aspirations and ideals asto how online instructional material should be generally. Looking back in yourexperience, how much do you agree with these statements?
(9) Online language learning instruction should be task-based rather than rotelearning.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––-3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(10) Online language learning material should help develop real-life problem-solving and critical thinking skills.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(11) Authentic learning materials should sometimes be used.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(12) Learner initiatives should be encouraged rather than everything preparedand spoon-fed by the teacher, e.g., having some topics of learning sug-gested by learners.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(13) Learners should be encouraged to co-construct class resources and thelearning environment, and co-create new learning and knowledge.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(14) Learner creativity should be encouraged.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
D. Learning style (Questions 15–19)
(15) Without a classroom and the presence of a teacher, I found online learningto be more self-directed and self-regulated.
Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
40 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
(16) Online learning is individualized or personalized learning. It allows flexibil-ity, encourages self-direction and choice, e.g., I did not always just followthe teacher’s instructions, or I was able to re-arrange learning material, orchoose my own online tools, and configure the learning environment tobest suit my learning goals and needs.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(17) I believe other class members formed their own personal learning environ-ments too.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(18) My preferences, needs, social life, technology choices, etc. were betterserved by online learning.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
(19) I felt that I had control over the learning process.Strongly disagree––––––1––––––2––––––3––––––4––––––5––––––Strongly agree
Part II: Personal experience (Questions 20–32)These are all open-ended questions. Please answer the following questions in as
much detail as you can.
(20) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you keep engagingin the course?
(21) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you interact withother class members?
(22) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you pair up andteam up for collaborative work, e.g. the paired oral presentation?
(23) Without the benefit of a traditional classroom, how did you socialize in anonline class?
(24) What is the most challenging thing about online language learning, in yourexperience?
(25) What other difficulties did you encounter during the course? (tick as manyitems below as were applicable to you)(a) Technical difficulties, e.g., getting online, or going into the Virtual
Classroom (vRoom), or getting online tools to work (e.g., Voice Recor-der, the Studio to record paired oral presentations), etc.
(b) Finding “partners” to work and practice with(c) Finding a common available time to work with a partner(d) Sticking to the pair-work or group-work schedule
Distance Education 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
(e) Keeping in touch with the class(f) Keeping in touch with the teacher, e.g., turning up at the weekly Vir-
tual Classroom sessions(g) Keeping interested in the course(h) Keeping motivated(i) Following the schedule and study regularly(j) Keeping the assessment deadlines(k) Being self-regulated as a successful learner should(l) Others. Please state:
(26) In the new environment of learning (as opposed to traditional classroomlearning), what changes and what effort did you have to make to adapt?
(27) What was successful and what was not in your new effort/methods?
(28) What more could you have done to achieve a better result?
(29) Did you notice any new ways/models of learning by other class members?
(30) In your opinion, what are the “best practices/ways” in online languagelearning?
(31) How can online teachers better facilitate and promote these new practices/ways of learning?
(32) Any other comment?
42 S. Y. H. Sun
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 2
0:31
30
Aug
ust 2
014
